Parker v. State Personnel Bd.

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: CARR; PARAS, Acting P. J., and REYNOSO
• Citation: Parker v. State Personnel Bd., 174 Cal.Rptr. 333, 120 Cal.App.3d 84 (Cal. App. 1981)
• Decision Date: 27 May 1981
• Parties: Charles Edward PARKER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. The STATE PERSONNEL BOARD of the State of California, Defendant and Respondent. 3 Civ. 20378.

Page 333

174 Cal.Rptr. 333

120 Cal.App.3d 84

Charles Edward PARKER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. The STATE PERSONNEL BOARD of the State of California, Defendant and Respondent.

3 Civ. 20378.

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

May 27, 1981.

John T. Murphy, San Francisco, for plaintiff and appellant.

George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen. of State of California, Corinne Lee Murphy, Deputy Atty. Gen., for defendant and respondent.

CARR, Associate Justice.

Plaintiff, a former employee of the California Youth Authority, appeals from a judgment denying his petition for a writ of administrative mandamus (Code Civ.Proc., § 1094.5) to compel his reinstatement as a Group Supervisor at the DeWitt Nelson Training Center in Stockton. Plaintiff's termination followed discovery of approximately 450 grams of marijuana growing and in loose form at his residence and was based, inter alia, on Government Code section 19572, subdivision (t), which permits disciplinary action against a state employee who exhibits a failure of good behavior either during or outside of duty hours which is of such a nature that it causes discredit to his agency or his employment. ¹ Testimony of a police officer at the administrative hearing indicated plaintiff admitted the marijuana was his.

Plaintiff appealed the termination to the State Personnel Board (hereinafter board). After a hearing in which plaintiff offered no testimony on the discovery of the marijuana because criminal proceedings against him were still pending ², the hearing officer found that plaintiff's possession of this large a quantity of marijuana was illegal and constituted grounds for punitive action under Government Code section 19572, subdivision (t). The hearing officer further found plaintiff's status as a peace officer and his job functions of guidance and supervision of Youth Authority wards provided a relationship between the possession of marijuana and plaintiff's employment. Finding plaintiff's "extreme departure from the standard of conduct reasonably required" warranted his dismissal, the hearing officer proposed sustaining the dismissal. The board adopted the proposed decision and denied plaintiff's petition for rehearing. Plaintiff then filed the present action in superior court.

After examining the administrative hearing transcript and hearing arguments, the superior court found plaintiff had received a fair hearing, the board's findings were supported by substantial evidence, and there was no abuse of discretion. Judgment was entered accordingly and this appeal followed.

On appeal plaintiff argues that marijuana possession cannot be the basis of punitive action under Government Code section 19572, subdivision (t) in the absence of evidence linking such possession to unfitness for employment and that any conclusion of unfitness in this case is based on surmise, conjecture or speculation. He contends his limited peace officer status should not alter the linkage requirement and concludes he was terminated for being arrested, an impermissible justification. We do not agree.

Our consideration of judgments such as this one is controlled by the substantial evidence test. (Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, 217, fn. 31, 124 Cal.Rptr. 14, 539 P.2d 774.) We review the board's decision in light of the entire administrative record. (Tripp v. Swoap (1976) 17 Cal.3d 671, 676, 131 Cal.Rptr. 789, 552 P.2d 749.) Our standard is whether the record discloses substantial evidence (reasonable, credible and of solid value) such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found as it did. (In re Angelia P. (1980) 28 Cal.3d 908, 924, 171 Cal.Rptr. 637, 623 P.2d 198.)

Plaintiff is correct in asserting that the failure of good behavior within the terms of Government Code section 19572, subdivision (t) must be of such a nature that it reflects upon the employee's job. (Nightingale v. State Personnel Board (1972) 7 Cal.3d 507, 512, 102 Cal.Rptr. 758, 498 P.2d 1006, quoting with approval from Orlandi v. State Personnel Bd. (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 32, 37, 69 Cal.Rptr. 177.) The record here reflects plaintiff was employed as a group supervisor at a vocational training institution for the rehabilitation of youthful offenders. The superintendent of the institution testified that...